Partly allowed

D.Laxman Rao v. Ch.Srinivasaraju

Telangana HC1 Jul 2022MACMA/269/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court modified the Tribunal's award in a motor accident claims case. Reconsidering the injured party's income, the court awarded 50% of claimed loss of earning capacity and disallowed future prospects due to injury nature. The insurance company's appeal was dismissed as no evidence was produced.

What did the court decide?

Award modified to Rs.5,95,000/- including interest; Insurance appeal dismissed.

D.Laxman Rao Vs Ch.Srinivasaraju — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^321s ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

MACMA NO: 269 OF 2017 & 634OF 2012

¶7

Appeals filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, against the order dated 26-05201 1 passed in O.P.No. 240312008 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between

¶9

D. Laxman Rao, S/o. Padma Rao @ Veera Raghavulu, Aged 38 years, Occ: Painter cum Contractor Rl/o. H.No.363, BHEL, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad.

¶10

...APPELLANT IN MACMA NO. 269 OF 2017 AND RESPONDENT NO.1 IN MACMA NO.634 OF 2012

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Ch. Srinivasaraju, S/o. Narsimha Raju, Aged Major, Occ. Business, Fyo. 8-3168lEl2l571601601 , Plot No. 601, Tharangraj Apartments, Rajeevnagar, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT NO 1 IN MACMA NO. 269 OF 2017 AND RESPONDENT NO. 2IN MACMA NO. 634 OF 2012

¶14

Reliance General lnsurance Co Ltd, rep by its Manager, 6-3-666/8, lV Floor, Deccan Chambers, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN MACMA NO. 269 OF 2017 AND APPELLANT IN MACMA NO.634 OF 2012

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant in MACMA No. 269 of 2017 And Respondent No.l in MACMA No. 634 of 2012: SRl. K HARIMOHAN REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent no. 2 in MACMA No.269 ot 2017 and Appellant in MACMA No. 634 of 2012: SRI. RAMACHANDRAREDDY GADI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 in MACMA No. 269 of 2017 and Respondent No.2 in MACMA No. 634 of2012: NONE APPEARED

¶19

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶20

¶21

I l i I I

¶22

THE HON )IIRABLE SMT.JUSTICE P.MADHAV] DEII

¶23

M.A.C. I..4..Nos. 269 OF 2Ol7 atd,634 OF 2t)72

¶24

COMMON ORI^,ER:

¶25

The clai nirn, is the appellant in M.A.(i.M.A i'lo.!69 of 2017 and alsc rr:spondt'nt in the appeal filed lry the )nsttrancc Company in M A.C.M.A No.634 of 2012. Both these ir[]peirls are hled against^-rc au,ard dated 26.O5.2011 in O.F'.^'o.22 03 o1' 2O0ll on thc lil : oI ll Adilitror-ral Chicf Judge-cun-It{c,t:,r Accident Claims Tribr-rn .1. Cit_r'Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶26

The brie lrcts lcading to hling of the prt sent rl.,peitls arc that in |h,,, Nlotor V,:hi,.:lc accident that loo.< p1a,:e on 08.03.20O8, t e p(r(itioner snstained lracture o[ bo ]r bones ol left leg. Thc c ri;nzLnt claimecl a conrpensation of Rs.,1 ,O0,0OO/ for the rrrjrrr' :s snstained by him, while the lri:,r-tnal has awarded a co nl)ensation o[ Rs.2,53,000/- only an,1 therefore, seeking enhar :e menL of thc compensation, Lh('MACrl!'A lto.269 of 2Ol7 is frlc I oy the c'laimant. Challenging the cor: perLsalion awarded b), tl c lorvr:r Court, the Insurance CL)mpaiv h:.s hled MACMA lJo.61 4 ot 2012

¶27

ln the ':leriman[s appeal. t]rere is it J)r-a]'rrr for consideration rf rronthl.y incorne of the claimant @^ir,.. 12 O0O l- per mon1h. IL s no".iced that the c.laimant clainrs tc r(. a )ainter anci submits^.,hirt he has bee n earning Rs. 1t) oot)/-^tc)

¶28

PMD,J MACI|A Nos.269 of 2017 & 6j4 ol 2012 2

¶29

Rs.12,00O/ - per nionth, rvhcreas the 'lribunal has takcn thc monthly income only @ Rs.4,000/-. Hc also submittcd thar due to thc grievous injuries to his lcft leg, he is unable to stand and perform his duties and therefore, there is lcss of income to him for the period of recuperation and also subsequently. He prays that suitable compensation should be awarded towards loss of carning, loss of amenities, medical bills, medical expenses incurrcd for removal of inse:ted implants and also towards transportation.

¶30

Having regard to the r-ival contentions and the material on record, it is seen that the injured was 40 years of age at the time of accident and was admittedly cioing painting rvorks. With his age and experience, it is deemed fit and proper to assume that he would be earning any'rvhere between Rs.8,00O/ - to Rs. 12,000/- per month at the relevant point of time. In view of the same, this Court deems it fit and proper to adopt the monthly income of the injured as Rs.10,0O0/- and compensation is awarded accordingly.

¶31

As regards loss of earnings, the claimant had claimed Rs.60,000/-, but the Tribunal has awarded compensation for a period of 6 months. Since, the monthly income of the claimant has been directed to be adopted at to Rs. 1O,000/-, the

¶32

PMD,J MACMA No5.259 of 2A7⁷ 8. 634 of 2012

¶33

¶34

compcnsation ir- a pcriocl o[ 6 months i.c.,^{Rs.6(),O0{)/ -is} alloq,ed.

¶35

The lear er:l r;ounseL for the claimant has rc'li'i upln the foilowing Jud6 r.r,:nts in support of the claim cf cotrLpensation towards disabi it.. and loss o[ luture^prospects:

¶36

(i) Jaga< ish Vs. Mohan and Othersl;

¶37

(ii) P.Vy lehi Vs. A.Srinivas & Another2;

¶38

(iii) S.S rtya Jaya Vs. G.Harshavardhan Iteddlr and Anothers;

¶39

(iv) M.A rjaneyulu Vs. K.V.Rathaiaha;

¶40

(v) P.Be lzamen Franklen Vs. S.Eshwara and A.not:hers;

¶41

(vi) Sye I Nawaz Ali Vs. V.Kondal Rao and Arother6;

¶42

(vii) Si rgireddy Malla Reddy Vs. N.Sanjeovaiah aud AnotherT;

¶43

(viii) Ja <ir Hussain Vs. Sabir and Otherss.

¶44

This Cc rlt {inds that in the case of Jagadish^.V's. Mohan

¶45

and Others ( ', sr-rpra), the injured lost his bolh heuL,l.s aed was

¶46

12018 ACU 10r1(Si I 2 High Court of A.P. n I,IACIUA No.:1034 of 2012, dated 29 O4.2O14. 3 High Court of A.l'. n t,lA(lMA No.il03I ol 20 12, dated 29.O4.2O 14 . 4 High Courl of Tela gala n Mnclv^ No 2240 ot2012, darcd 02_08.2019 5 High Court of Tela ga la n M^CN'r\ No 575 of20I l, dare(t 19.08 2019. a) High Court of Tcla ga 1:r n N{n CNIA No.249l oi 2012, dared 02.08 20I9 7 High Oour I ofTcla ga ra ,n MACNiA No.268 of 2012, dared 20.08.2019. 8 2015 Lau.Slrlt^(SC l1/

¶47

PMD,) MACMA Nas.26g oJ 201/ & 634^{ol 2012}

¶48

¶49

unable to pcrform day^{to day actrvitics u'ithouL assistance o[ an} attendant and his^{disablementwas assessedat 90%.}

¶50

ln the case of P.Vydchi^{Vs. A'Srinivas& Another(2nd} supra), it was held that thc^{injured therein cannot sit and} squat, stand and walk for a^{long timc due to ma-ll union of} pelvic bone and developed stiffness of^{right hip, femer and right} side knee and therefore,^{she is unable to discharge her duties} effeclivcly and she was^{held to be sufferingfrom permanent} disablemcnt.

¶51

In the case of S.Satya Jaya^{\rs. G.Harshavardhan Reddy} and Another^(3'd supra),^{itwas observedthat the injured} therein sustained seven^{injuries including grievous injury on the} front of wedge compression,^{fracturc of Dl2 Vertebra, fracture} of left leg foot, linear^{fracture,head of V M.T. Femer and based} on these injuries it^{was concludedthat the injured cannot travel} long distances, cannot^{bend, cannot lift weights and cannotsit} continuously for long^{time and that it is difficultfor her to} discharge her duties^{effectivelyand she was held to be suffering} from permanent disablement.

¶52

The injured^{persons in the cases of M.Anjaneyulu Vs'} K.V.Rathaiah^(4r cited),^{P.Benzamen Franklen Vs. S.Eshwara} and Another 15r cited),^{Syed NawazAli Vs. V.KondalRao and} Another (6u cited), Singireddy^{MallaReddy Vs. N.Saajeevaiah}

d.z"/

,MD,J

MACMA Nos.269 ol201;' ,i ti34 ot²⁰¹²

¶57

¶58

I i rl

¶59

and Another (^,l' citcd),^\'c re^c( rtifted to be^{sull,:r'rl Igrom} mulliple lractur, irijtirie s and u'erc assesscd to bt suli^{I ]ng lrom} disabilitl,. tn all these cascs, this^{I.lon'trle Court :tu'arc r:':1 fi ture} prospects l>y re yi:rg on the^judgmcnt of the Hon'I:l:^Siuplcme Court in the c Ls: of Jagadish Vs.^{Mohanand Others(L'l} supra).

¶60

In the ca e oI Jakir Hussain^Vs. Sabir^{and Other!; (8e} citecl). the rnju :c thcrcirr sLlstair)cci^{gric'vous i,riuries anri his} right arm irad c\ cre coITlpoLtnd Irrtcturcs^{prcvcr-rtinl:.im from} performing his rcgr-tlar vrork as zt drivcr and his Jrr)r-mitnent disability rvas z ssessed aL^3oo/o, while functiona I^{clis;e b lit1 was} assessed aL lO(^y'o

¶61

In the c.sc cn h:rnd, the avocation of the irrjur:d^is painting. He s ts,ained three injuries, (i) a sutured acerated injury 3x1 cm⁽⁾ⁿ the ilnteromedial aspect ol lefi^lerg i-r^the lower 1/3,a (ii an abrasion on the posterior aspect^rt:- the left hbulzr in the lower I i 3'a; (iii) swelling creJrittts,^a bn,trmal mobili[, preser I r n the lorver¹ / 3rd of fibula and x-r:i]'^{teft ankle} showing fractu e of lower^1/3rd of^fibula. The natur:^{,) - in juries} sustained by t re injured^irr the present case does nc,l.^propose award of cor Lplnsatiort towards Ioss of firturr: :rrol;pects inasmuch as t re se injur.es are not of the natul-e dt:[L:-:ed under Section 142 ol Motor Vehicle s Act as laid dowrr by tlrt: Hon'b1e

¶62

PMD,I MACMA Nos.Z69 ol 2077 & 6i4^oJ 2072 6

¶63

Apex Court in Lhe case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar^and - Anothere

¶64

Since no compensation has been awarded towards transport expenses and extra nourishment, the sum^of Rs.10,0OO/- is ailowed and the compensation o1 Rs.2O,000/towards loss of amenities is allou'ed.

¶65

In the light of the above mentioned discussion, the

¶66

claimant is entitlcd to following amounts:

¶67

Sl.No.	Head	Compensationawarded
1	Income(10,O0Ox12)	Rs.1,20,OO0/-perannum
2	Multiptier	15(asapplied bytheTribunal)
	of Disabitity/1oss earning capacity	25Vo (asassessed bythe Tribunal)
4	Lossofincomedueto disability	Rs.4,50,000/- (1,20,00Ox15x25%)
5	[,ostofpast earnings	Rs.60,0OO/- (10,00ox6)
6	Transportation Extra nourishment and	Rs.10,0OO/-
	Inssof amenities	Rs.20,0OO/-
8	Pain and suffering	Rs.30,0OO/-(asawardedby theTribunal)
9	Medical expenditure	Rs.25,000/-(asawarded by theTribunal)
	TotalCompensation Awarded	Rs.5,95,OO0/-alongwith [email protected]/oPerannum fromthedateoffiling ofthe claim petitiontillpayment

¶68

In the result, the award dated 26.05.2011 in O.P.No.24O3 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge-cum-Motor

¶69

'2ott,qclt

¶70

PMD,l MACMA Nos.269 oI20i? t|634 i 2012

¶71

¶72

Accidenls Clair rs l'ribunal, CitY Civil Courts,^{Hvr'l :r rbad, is} modillccl by ar alding a total^{compensationoiRs.li,':)5,000/-} (Rupoes hve lal n:, and nir-rety ltve thousand onl] )^{\ ilh t osts ancl} intercst @ 7.5o, J)er annum thereon^{from thc} datt^{ol lhe claim} petition till the ll.te of realization against resporrdt nl;^{IVo.L ancl} 2 jointly and s:verally. !-he respondent^{insurancl:c-rnpa.ny is} directed to dep^,sit the compensation amount au'ardt:<l ''vitlLin⁶⁰ days from the li: te of receipt of a copy of this^{judl3rrrltrt. aftcr} giving credit tc tlrc depos;it of amount, if any, aire;rc1^{t r-tace. C)tl} such <leposit, hc r:laima.nl is permittcd to^{u'ithdr-authc same} uith,rr-rt [rrrris] ir g any s,., urit1^.

¶73

As regar ls the appeal filed by Lhe lttsr.rranc:^colnpany against lhe cr rpensation awarcled towards disab^{t t-r' (@ 25"/o,} this Court fin ls tnat the Tribunal has accepterl^{tr r. rr edical} certihcate pro .u:ed by the petitioner from the lvlrrrli,:'al Board and awarded tlre comoensation accordingly. The^insttrance company has merely raised various grounds, blLt rr:, evidence has been putf rth in support thereof. Thereforc, no^{tl Lerlerence} is called lbr in tbis regard.

¶74

M.A.C.I\ .A.No.269 of²⁰¹⁷ filed by the^cL Lirnar^t 7'^inj -rred^is partly aliowed rv.th out crrsls.

¶75

M..q.C.I .l..Irio.634 of 2il2 hled by tl'r:^insurance company is di ;nrissed without^costs.

¶76

,__

¶77

PMO,! MACMA Nos.269 ol 2017 & 634 of 2012

¶78

¶79

-r-I

¶80

Pending miscellaneous peLitions, if any, in these MACMAs

¶81

shall stand closed

¶82

//TRUE COPY//

¶83

Sd/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (tD

¶84

SECTION OFFICER

¶85

To,

¶86

1 The ll Additional Chief Judge-Cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (With Records)

¶87

2 One CC to SRl. K. HARIMOHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶88

J One CC to SRl. RAIVACHANDRAREDDY GADI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶89

4 Two CD Copies

HIGH COU t

DATED: 0110712022

COMMON ORDER.

.i-=:==:--,>_
,1, : , . {E ST;,,-1 " ,...'.x.<i".
4x
l il IAB 0?x

¶97

MACMA.N >.269 of 2017 \ND

¶98

MACMA.N r. 634 of 2012

¶99

PARTLY I.LLOWING MACMA NO. 269 ')F AND

¶100

'2017

¶101

DISMISSIIIG MACMA NO. 634 OF 2012 WI IHOUT COSTS

¶102

4.,, t7, ') G

¶103

[321e ]

¶104

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶105

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY

¶106

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶107

PRESENT

¶108

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶109

MACMA NO: 269 OF 2017 & 634OF 2012

¶110

Between:

¶111

D. Laxman Rao, S/o. Padma Rao @ Veera Raghavulu, Aged 38 years, Occ: Painter cum Contractor RJo. H.No.363, BHEL, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad.

¶112

...APPELLANT IN MACMA NO. 269 OF 2017 AND RESPONDENT NO.1 IN MACMA NO. 634 OF 2012

¶113

AND

¶114

1 Ch- Srinivasaraju, S/o. Narsimha Raju, Aged tr/a.jor, Occ. Business, Fyo.8-316alEl2l571601601, Plot No. 60'1, Tharangraj Apartments, Rajeevnagar, Hyderabad.

¶115

...RESPONDENT NO 1 IN MACMA NO. 269 OF 2017 AND RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN MACMA NO. 634 OF 2012

¶116

Reliance General lnsurance Co Ltd, rep by its Manager, 6-3-666/8, lV Floor, Deccan Chambers, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶117

,..RESPONDENT NO.2IN MACMA NO. 269 OF 2017 AND APPELLANT IN MACMA NO.634 OF 2012

¶118

Appeals filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, against the order dated 26-05201 1 passed in O-P.No. 24O3|2OOB on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

¶119

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum Grounds of Appeal, the order of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Harimohan Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA No. 269 of 2017 and for Respondent No.^'1 in MACMA No. 634 of 2012 and Sri Ramachandrareddy Gadi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 in MACMA No. 269 of 2017 and for the Appellant in MACMA No. 634 ot 2012 and

¶120

Respondent No. r I l,4ACtV1A No 269 of 2017. Respo,dent l.lcr 2 n MACtvlA No 634 ol 2012 not a rp,;21sd eitl-er in person or by Advocatc.

¶121

This Court Doth (^-d :r and Decree as follows

¶122

1 That the [/ \CIVA No. 269 of 2Ojl fited by the cla mant/iri rred be and hereb Y is allowing r trarl;

¶123

That the a\ ard dated 26-05-2011 in O.p. No. Z4O3 of ZOC{: on the fite of the

¶124

Additional 3hie' Judge-Cum-Motor Accidents Claims^-'ribLnal, City Civil Courts, H 'dr-.rabad b,e and hereby is modifred : I awitrding a total compensal :r of Rs. 5,95,000/- (Rupees Fjve Laklr; an3 Ninety Five Thousand rnly) with costs and interest @ 7.5% per anr rr n thereon ftom the Cate of th€ cl,linr petition till the date of realizatioI aqain,;l respondents No.1 and 2^jointl ' and severally,

¶125

3 That the r€ ;p,)ndent insurance company be and hereb,r r; directed to deposit the comce sirtion amount awarded within 60 (Sixtyr l) ty.; frr>m the date of receiot of u copy,of this, judgment, after giving to the depc,:;it of amount, if any already ma le

¶126

4 That on su h iecosit, the claimant be and hereby s pefrr l:ed o withcjraw the same with( tt furnishing any secunty;

¶127

That save s aforesaid the decree of the Lower Coud s.ta I stands confirmed in all other espects;

¶128

6 That the Iv \OMA No. 634 of 2012 tted by the insurar r;r,r conpany be and hereby is d ;nrissed; and

¶129

That there herll be no order as to costs in the appeals.

¶130

Sd/. P. PAI)MANABHA REDDY ASSI:;TAN REGISTRAR

¶131

/iTRUE COPY//

¶132

SECilOtr OFFICER

¶133

To, The ll Addi orral Chief Judoe-Cum-Motor Accident Clain:; -l ribr-nal, CityCivil Court. Hyd rabad. (With R6cordsl

¶134

2 Two CD Cr ties

HIGH COU t'T

DATED: 0'^ 10712022

COMMON DECREE

MACMA.N t.269 of 2017 \ND MACMA.N ). 634 of 2012

¶140

PARTLY I.LLOWING MACMA NO. 269 OF 12017 AND DISMISSIIIG MACMA NO. 634 OF 2012 WI IHOUT COSTS

¶141

(9q'' &." 6\3\13

D.Laxman Rao v. Ch.Srinivasaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Laxman Rao v. Ch.Srinivasaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. The Golconda (Bc) Labour Contract Co-operative Society Limited Vs Sri Dana Kishore

Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nimmala Murali and 4 Others

Smt. J Dhanalakshmi, Hyd and Another Vs K. Satyanarayana, Karimnagar Dist and Another

National Ins. Com. Ltd., Nizamabad Dist Vs S Chalam Babu, Adilabad Dist and 1 Other

Tsrtc and Another Vs Ch. Neeraja and 2 Others

Goddeti Saidulu Vs Gunda Kalyani